hms iron duke

Wednesday, 29 June 2016

Warsaw, Poland. 29 June. It has
been an interesting couple of days. My reason for coming here on the eve of the
NATO Warsaw Summit was to present my new paper, NATO: The Enduring Alliance 2016 for the German Polish Co-operation
Foundation. However, the 65 million person elephant in the room for much of the
debate was of course Brexit. Part of me wondered what kind of reception I would
get. After all, in the past I called for Britain to leave the EU, I predicted
Brexit, before I decided after talking to a lot of people, and in the wake of
the Paris attacks, that on balance Britain should remain. My concerns were
misplaced. Poland of all countries understands the difficulty of balancing patriotism,
interdependence, and membership of an institution a significant part of which
would like to replace the democratic state with an oligarchic super-state.

What I found instead this morning
at the Sjem, Poland’s parliament, when
speaking to senior parliamentarians, was a respect for the democratic decision of
the British people. What I also found was Polish pragmatism. Poland deeply
regrets Brexit. However, there was absolutely no sense that the British people
should somehow be punished for having the temerity to have expressed a majority
opinion on a matter of fundamental import to them. Rather, there was a genuine commitment
to forge a new relationship for Britain with the EU, and to confirm Britain’s
existing relationships with friends and allies on the Continent. The terrible
events in Istanbul last night served as a stark reminder of the dangers we all
face and must all face together.

Encouragingly it was also an
opinion of hope and goodwill expressed by Ambassador Rolf Nikel, Germany’s
envoy to Poland, at a delightful reception held last night at the German
Embassy. Indeed, the only humiliation to which I was subjected concerned the tactical
withdrawal from the European football championships by England following their
defeat by mighty Iceland. Don’t worry. I
immediately countered by enquiring as to the state of Berlin’s new airport!

Poland is committed to keep the
British fully engaged in the security and defence of Europe. They are right. To
that end the forthcoming NATO Warsaw Summit must to some extent be a Brexit
summit. Indeed, it will be a chance for London to remind it allies and partners
that Britain remains a power and is utterly committed to the security and
defence of Europe. There is one caveat. David Cameron and George Osborne are talking
of more cuts to public expenditure in light of Brexit. It would certainly be a
mistake to cut the British defence budget any further. It would also be
advisable to re-invest in Britain’s diplomatic machine as London will need all
the tools of influence at its disposal in the coming years.

So, Poland need not worry…too much.
However, Poland’s help would be much appreciated, recognising Warsaw faces its
own political challenges at present. Forget all the pre-negotiation posturing.
As France and Germany have proven in the past it is amazing how flexible
European ‘principles’ are when it comes to power. A post-Brexit deal is
possible. That was also the view of my Polish counterparts.

Which brings me to Scotland. If
European partners such as Poland want to find a solution with and for the UK to
the mutual benefit of all they must be careful how they respond to the
political manoeuvrings of the Scottish Nationalist Party leader, Nicola
Sturgeon. Her political mission is and always has been to destroy the UK. The
Scots had a referendum in September 2014 which saw a decisive 55%-45% rejection
of Scottish independence. Above all, Sturgeon legitimised the UK-wide Brexit
referendum as a UK-wide referendum by campaigning in it, and by campaigning
outside of Scotland for the Remain side. She can hardly cry foul simply because
she lost a vote that she legitimised. She might have had a case if she had
ordered the SNP to abstain on the grounds that such a referendum had not been
formally endorsed by the Scottish Parliament. She did not. Therefore, countries
like Poland have a choice to make; London or Edinburgh.

What struck me most about this
visit is the deep and enduring human relationship between Britain and Poland.
What rightly matters to Poles is the proper and respectful treatment of the up
to one million Poles now living in mainly England. However, if Poland really
wants to help a friend at this difficult time it could do so by recognising that
it was the sheer scale and pace of inward migration that drove much of the
Brexit vote. It was also the refusal of fellow Europeans to heed warnings about
this.

Britain will not get access to
the single market unless it upholds the principle of free movement. A huge
swathe of British people will not accept a new deal with the EU unless and
until some degree of pragmatic management of immigration is in place. Absolutism
on either side right now will simply entrench already entrenched positions. It
would be better for all of us to properly explore the possible, not retreat
behind the barricades of the impossible.

So, the message from Warsaw? Let’s all calm down, those trying to stir the
pot cease and desist, and those responsible for moving us all forward…get a
grip! There will be a solution but
together we must fashion it.

Monday, 27 June 2016

Warsaw, Poland. 27 June. The
causes of Brexit that I have heard thus far are as follows:

The politics of austerity, the
collapse of the Labour Party and the loss of the white working and not-so-working
class, splits in the Conservative Party, Tory grandees, David Cameron’s
political gambling, David Cameron’s ‘deal’ to the keep Britain in an unreformed
EU, English political culture, the erosion by the EU of national democracy and
sovereignty, popular demands for ever more devolution, elite demands for ever
more centralisation, the Euro, the growing gap between the Eurozone and the
non-Eurozone, the 1991 Treaty of Maastricht and the UK opt-outs, the
marginalisation by France and Germany of the UK within the EU, immigration and
the refusal of the political elite in London and Brussels to address popular concerns
over many years, the sheer pace and scale of immigration, failure to prepare
sufficient housing, schools and public services to cope with mass immigration,
refusal of Brussels to be flexible, the failure to make the case for immigration,
Commonwealth immigrants who did not like a perceived bias in favour of
migration from the EU, Jean-Claude Juncker, the 1973 lie that ‘Europe’ was only
a common market, the 1957 Treaty of Rome, a nostalgic view of English and Welsh
history, a lot of Westminster politicians, some Whitehall bureaucrats, the
Establishment in general (both British and EU) which many in England just
wanted to give a good kicking to, the collapse of political integrity
spectacularly revealed by both the Leave and Remain campaigns, Martin Schulze,
Tony Blair, George Osborne, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Jeremy Corbyn, protectionism, the European Commission and interfering Eurocrats, the European
Parliament and its lack of political legitimacy, Iraq, Afghanistan, President
Obama, globalisation, blaming globalisation, the British media,
de-industrialisation, patriotism, fat cat employers, multinational
corporations, the European Court of Justice and the dictatorship of legalism,
the European Court of Human Right, because it got confused with the European
Court of Justice, ignorance, bigotry and downright prejudice, and from a personal
point of view the Eurovision bloody song contest, Sheffield Wednesday which I
blame for everything, and me because I predicted it!

As for who voted for what and for
what reasons please take your pick. However, be careful. The latest I have heard
from our Dear Leaders today is a) that the referendum should be re-run so that
the peasants can this time get the answer right; b) the referendum should be
re-run because it upset Martin Schulze who injured his fist banging a table; c)
the referendum should be re-run because the peasantry were so stupid that they ticked
the ‘leave’ box when they meant to tick the ‘an awful lot more Brussels’ box,
d) the referendum should be ignored by Parliament because Britain has a
representative democracy even if it is not very representative; and e) the EU
would like the British to pretend the referendum never actually happened at
all.

Saturday, 25 June 2016

Alphen, Netherlands. 25 June. It
is 30 hours or so since Britain’s historic decision to leave the EU and the fallout
and backlash is just beginning. What do I feel now about Brexit? Over those hours
I have been saddened but little shocked by the vitriol sent my way. One email even
suggested that Britain has become an enemy of Europe, whatever that means. Emails
have been refused, and one good friendship lost, which I regret. But don’t
worry, I can take it. After all, I am cut from the same Yorkshire oak as the
many of the people that drove this decision, and I have always taken responsibility for my
writings.

I am an analyst and my job is to
analyse. Back in 2010 I did believe Britain should leave the EU. Britain was
mired in a massive banking crisis, and the Eurozone was mired in a massive debt
crisis. The Eurozone faced a choice; integrate or collapse. Britain did not
face such a choice.

Back then it was clear to my mind
that the only way for the Eurozone to resolve the crisis, and indeed make the
Euro work was a deepening of European political and monetary union, including a
banking union. Eurozone leaders still face that choice, they just haven’t taken
it. And so the Eurozone crisis bubbles away below a thin crust of apparent
political stability ready to explode at any moment. Given that Britain was never going to part of deeper political integration my
on balance sense was that back then Britain should leave the EU.

What has I admit irritated me
throughout this entire intervening period is the extent to which some senior
Americans have treated my country as a strategic public convenience; Britain and
the British people as mere instrument of American grand strategy. In so doing
they have denied that Britain is a living, breathing democracy with its own
issues, and its own tensions, its own interests, and its own political identity.
The Obama administration has routinely dismissed British concerns about the
direction of travel of the EU as some kind of post-Imperial psychosis rather
than seen such concerns for what they are; a complex reflection of the same
distrust of distant power that drove their own revolution back in 1776, and about
which Americans are so proud. Indeed, far from backing British calls for EU
reform the Obama Administration tried to force Britain into into simply accepting
a status quo that was never sustainable over the longer term. Still, one can
hardly blame the Americans for that Little Britain view of Britain. Too many needy
British leaders have convinced American leaders to think of Britain as little
more than an American strategic public convenience.

Several events led me to shift my
position on the EU. The outbreak of the Syrian war and the emergence of ISIS
began to change the strategic environment in which Britain and Europe reside,
and threatened the collapse of states across the Middle East and North Africa.
In 2014 Russia seized Crimea and began the long dissection of Ukraine which
continues to this day. Moscow also began to threaten and intimidate Central, Eastern
and Northern Europe. Huge flows of desperate people forced their way into Europe
and compounded the many problems faced by countries in southern Europe. In
November 2015 ISIS terrorists attacked Paris and then Brussels. Whilst I
retained some sympathy for the frustrations many feel in Britain about the EU.
and the way it is run, in such circumstances I could not countenance Britain
leaving the EU.

There will be some Americans who
will also blame Brexit for the weakening of NATO. OK, I will admit that there
can be no EU Common Security and Defence Policy worthy of the name without
Britain. But then, there never was going to be a truly ‘C’ CSDP with Britain
because to make the ‘C’ word mean something a European government would be required. How many of
you out there really want a European government? Your call.

As for NATO it is not Britain
that has weakened the Alliance. After all, under NATO rules the British are one
of of only four Allies who actually meet the target of 2% GDP to be spent on
defence with 20% on new equipment. If there is any one factor that has prevented
so many Allies meeting what should be a minimum commitment to the Alliance it
is the Eurozone rule that prevents a state ratcheting up a budget deficit of
more than 3% GDP, even at a time of crisis. Don’t blame Britain for that.

Next week President Hollande and
Chancellor Merkel will hold one of their directoire
meetings to discuss the post-Brexit EU. Years ago I called for a trirectoire and the inclusion of British
prime ministers in such meetings. After all, Britain is Europe’s second
biggest economy and strongest military power. That call was rejected. It has
always seemed to me one of the EU’s many contradictions how European ‘integration’
has always been defined by two major powers and their national interests in the
name of ‘Europe’.

Here’s the irony. At that meeting Merkel and Hollande will call for a
more flexible Europe. They will not agree on much else. Had they done that even a few days ago they may have
swung enough undecided British voters (you know the people who are meant to
matter, but to much of the elite do not) to back Remain.

Brexit also marks a moment of
opportunity. With Britain about to leave the EU we will see just how
enthusiastic those Europeans (and Americans) who have long blamed Britain for
blocking ‘progress’ really are for some form of United States of Europe. This
is your moment, guys. No longer can you Euro-federalists blame us British for
blocking your glorious Project Europe. I suspect, however, we will soon discover
just how many of you do not actually want ever closer political union.

Brexit was long in the making,
but too many refused to see it coming. Read my blogs and other writings and I warned people that Brexit could happen because for years Britain and the Real EU, the
Eurozone, have been drifting apart. Brexit has now formalised what for a long
time has been an observable fact on the ground. Indeed, those that argued that
by remaining in the EU Britain would be upholding the status quo were talking
as much rubbish as those that argued leaving would mark the start of a new
Elizabethan age for Britain, or more accurately England. The EU was never going to, nor could it ever, remain
where it is today; trapped between debt, integration, and impotence.

So, we all have a choice to make
right now. If the blame game of the past 24 hours gathers pace then Brexit will
indeed weaken Europe, Britain and the West and there will be no winners at all.
If, however, common sense prevails and a period of calm reflection is then followed
by sober considerations of how best to proceed mutually beneficial outcomes can
be crafted and at least some positives will come out of this mess. The next two
and a half years would then be about the nature of Britain’s future
relationship with a future EU. Good sense would ensure such a relationship works
for all – Britons (even Scots), other Europeans, and even Americans.

As for Britain as enemy, really?
There are plenty of those elsewhere. So, keep calm and carry on talking.

Friday, 24 June 2016

Alphen, Netherlands. 24
June. Why did Brexit happen? Peering
through the grey drape of fatigue in which I am cloaked having spent the night
watching history being made (or is that unmade) the decision the British people
have taken last night is quite simply momentous. To be honest I felt something
like this might happen the moment I saw people in a working men’s club in my
native Yorkshire declare for leave to a man and woman. I know these people.
Part of me is hewn from their stock. This was the English, and I stress the
English, at their stubborn best and bloody-minded worst. An Agincourt-beckoning
two fingers (the English don’t do one finger) to distant Establishments from
people who have for too long felt ignored, bypassed, and don’t give a damn who
tells them what they must do however exalted.

It would be easy to blame
a lot of people for Britain’s decision. And yes there are many who should be
looking hard at themselves this morning. French and German leaders who for
years excluded Britain from the leadership of the several European projects
always implicit in what eventually became the EU. A Brussels Establishment
impervious to all and any argument that did not fit into their ‘one size fits
all’ idea of ever closer political union. A kommentariat
of which I am in some ways a minor part who simply could not believe the
peasants would ever revolt.

In reality none of the
above were really the cause of Brexit. Britain’s departure began the day
Britain joined the then European Economic Community back in 1973. Ticking away
deep in the heart of Britain’s accession was a political time-bomb with a
delayed fuse that last night exploded. To convince the British people to accept
a new idea of ‘sovereignty’ then Prime Minister Edward Heath and his ministers simply
lied. They knew that the EEC was far more than a ‘common market’. Indeed, one
had only to read the preamble of the 1957 Treaty of Rome to realise that
Britain was joining a political project.

As the ambition of that
project grew over the years stepping, sometimes stumbling, forward from treaty
to treaty successive British leaders wriggled and struggled to maintain that original
lie. An opt-out here, a special ‘deal’ there, all to defend a political space
that over years steadily shrank. Finally, the idea that Britain could be in the
EU but outside the European Project could no longer be hidden and began to look
like the absurdity it was. In the end the original lie came to be seen even by some
members of the British Establishment, as an original political sin.

The problem with the lie
was that it eroded one vital conversation and replaced it with another. Since
at least the English civil war British democracy has been established on what
Abraham Lincoln would describe in his magisterial Gettysburg Address as government
of the people, for the people, by the people. However, as British politicians
danced ever more clumsily on the head of a hot political pin to maintain the original
lie the conversation with the British people itself became a lie.

Rather, for the British
Establishment the traditional conversation between power and people was
replaced by a more ‘important ‘conversation with Brussels and the leaders of
other EU member-states. And, as the gulf in importance between the two
conversations became ever wider it become ever clearer the European elite conversation
was far more important than the British political conversation. Worse, too much
of that elite conversation took place behind closed doors in a secrecy-obsessed
Brussels. This exacerbated a gnawing, growing sense in the political instincts
of millions that Europe was not for the people but against the people. That democracy was being eroded with the Mother of Parliaments reduced to little
more than a political reality show.

The die is now cast. My
arguments against Brexit have been confounded. This is a moment for calm
reflection. Given the dangerous world into which Britain and states and peoples
that this morning remain friends and allies are moving, it is vital a new
relationship between a post-Brexit Britain and the EU is quickly established. The
British people cannot be punished for democracy. Britain must also sail towards
new horizons with countries with which it shares old visions.

The bottom line is that
with respect Britain is not Norway or Switzerland. Britain is a major power, the
world’s fifth biggest economy and fourth biggest defence spender. Turbulence is
of course inevitable. However, it is surely in the interest of all Europeans
and indeed the world-wide West to re-embed Britain in new relationships, not
least with what will soon inevitably be a new Europe. The British people have
exercised their democratic right. Other Europeans will exercise their own right
as they see it. That, after all, is why Britain fought and helped win two world
wars this century past. Britain has not suddenly become an ‘enemy’. There are plenty
of those elsewhere.

That Agincourt-beckoning
two fingers has in the past saved Europe from slavery. It maybe that last night
the English helped break the Europe that could not have been built without
Britain. I hope not. But, for better or worse, for good and ill Brexit is now fact
and I am very, very tired, and very, very sad. And, I now need some sleep. As
clearly does David Cameron for he has just resigned.

Monday, 20 June 2016

“I am a fool with a
heart but no brains, and you are a fool with brains but no heart; and we’re
both unhappy and we both suffer”.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Idiot

Alphen, Netherlands. 20 June. It seemed,
I suppose, fitting. In a speech to President Putin at the St Petersburg
Economic Forum Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi reminded the Russian President
that Dostoyevsky had written The Idiot
in Florence. Who is playing the idiot now? Certainly not President Putin. As
Renzi announced deals in St Petersburg with Russia worth some €1.3bn it was as
though Russia had done little to concern anyone of late; the illegal annexation
of Crimea, the forced detachment of much of eastern and south-eastern Ukraine,
the downing of MH17 by an anti-aircraft missile from a missile battery belonging
to the Kursk-based 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, the
treaty-busting stationing of treaty-illegal nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad, and
the almost daily illegal incursions by the Russian Air Force into the air space
of Baltic and Nordic EU and NATO members.

In a breathtaking act of
political insincerity Renzi danced on the head of a legalistic pin to justify the
deals. The deals were not technically in breach of EU sanctions, he said,
because they cover infrastructure and energy. And yet everyone in St Petersburg
with half a brain knew exactly what Renzi was doing. The only ‘strategic’
matter of import to him is that on his watch in 2015 the Italian budget deficit
ballooned to a record (even by Italian standards) 132.7% of GDP. Italy is
broke, the Italian debt crisis will soon break, and Renzi will do whatever deal
he can, with whoever he can, to delay what is now the inevitable.

President Putin understands all
of the above, precisely because President Putin understands power…and weakness.
He certainly understands the strategic
implications of his Italian Job which is why he is pushing it. Moreover, the deal
could not have been announced at a worse time for NATO, something which is not
lost on Moscow. With the July NATO Warsaw Summit beckoning the Italians have at
the stroke of a misplaced pen revealed there is little or no strategic unity of
purpose in the Alliance. To Rome the
Russians can intimidate Eastern European allies all they like just so long as
Italy can get down and do a dirty deal with Moscow.

Consequences? Putin has brought a
political cleaver down right through the middle of NATO and prized open an
existing cleavage. There will be much empty rhetoric at the Warsaw Summit about
NATO’s so-called 360 degree adaptation; that through political solidarity and the
efficient use of Allied forces credible deterrence will be afforded the Eastern
Allies against Russia, and a credible defence mounted in the south against
ISIS. Many words, little meaning, even fewer forces.

Rather, Renzi has demonstrated there
are two NATOs. One NATO defends Eastern Europe against Russian aggression,
about which Italy cares little. The other NATO helps defend against ISIS and
threats from the south to Italy, of which after the Renzi deal Eastern
Europeans will also care little.

Renzi has also revealed the
essential and dangerous contradiction, dare I say lie that is European defence.
Europeans are all too happy to defend their own bit of Europe, but not each
other. After all, is not defending Europe what the American taxpayer is for?

If the St Petersburg kow-tow to
Putin was Renzi alone then maybe the damage to Alliance and EU strategic unity
of effort and purpose could have been contained. However, just when one thought
it was safe to go out up pops ‘President’ Juncker to imply that EU sanctions
on Russia might soon be lifted. You can always count on good-old Jean-Claude,
the former prime minister of superpower Luxembourg, to put his political foot
in his strategic mouth. Worse, German Foreign Minister Franz-Walter Steinmeier
even suggested that by undertaking Exercise
Anaconda in Eastern Europe NATO was “warmongering”. This is the stuff of Monty Python, the political
equivalent of being forced to apologise to a bully for striking one in the
face. "Run away!"

By the way, you might like to
know Herr Steinmeier that since 2014 Russia has conducted twelve major snap
exercises all of which have been designed to intimidate Eastern European allies
and partners from Tallinn to Warsaw. Moreover, your government agreed to Allied exercises at the 2014 NATO Warsaw Summit as a necessary demonstration of
Alliance solidarity and strategic reassurance. There are also some 120,000
Russia troops if not threatening the Baltic States, at least implying a threat.
They are all peacekeepers of course.

Statecraft 101: it is enough to
make this seasoned strategist weep. Juncker, Renzi and Steinmeyer all share a
desperate desire to promote dialogue with Putin by sacrificing strategy to
short-term politics, and security for trade, in the hope that trade can provide
security.

Dialogue with President Putin is
needed but must only take place as part of considered statecraft and from a
position of strength. Such dialogue begins first with confidence-building
measures being undertaken by both sides. Kind words are then matched with good
deeds, and then built-up over time to a moment when both sides deem a formal
codification of bona fides to be
appropriate.

Instead, Prime Minister Renzi has
sold Italy, the EU and NATO down the Tiber, Juncker seems to have forgotten not
just the threat to EU citizens Russia continues to pose, but how many died due
to Russian military incompetence, whereas Steinmeier clearly does not
understand statecraft. We British remember a word for that from our own history;
appeasement.

President Putin says Russia demands
respect. Why would he want respect from European leaders who repeatedly and
consistently demonstrate that they fail to understand power, statecraft, and
the considered application of both?

Thursday, 16 June 2016

“To this war of every man against every
man, this also in consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right
and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common
power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force, and fraud, are in
war the cardinal virtues.”

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan

Alphen,
Netherlands. 16 June. Much of the past week I have spent reading the copious
amounts of literature kindly furnished me by Judge Marc Perrin de Brichambaud
of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. It was my distinct
honour to be the guest of the Judge last week on a visit to the futuristic court
building. It was fascinating, although I was somewhat thwarted in my desire to
witness the ICC in action by the two trials in process both hearing closed
evidence. My talents such as they are concern geopolitics and power politics,
not law. However, driving away from the ICC I could not but help think that the
ICC is in fact at the very cutting edge of geopolitics. Indeed, it is a noble
effort to instil some level of principle into power, and in so doing prevent
the inevitable impunity of Realpolitik.

The facts. The ICC
has a clear political role by overtly linking the serving of justice to the pursuit
of peace within the broad framework of the United Nations. The ICC tries
individuals charged with the gravest crimes: genocide, war crimes, and crimes
against humanity. In 2010 the founding Rome Statute was amended to include
aggression as a crime. However, for these amendments to become international
law they must be ratified by at least thirty states, which is as yet not the
case. The Court applies a form of international criminal justice that is an
amalgam of common law and the civil code.

On 17 July, 1998
one hundred and twenty states ratified the Rome Statute. On 1 July, 2002 the Statute took effect when
sixty states formally ratified the document. There are eighteen appointed
judges, served by some eight hundred staff from over one hundred countries,
with a 2016 budget of €139.5 million. In other words, by the standards of
international institutions the ICC is a small organisation.

There are six
official languages, but the two working languages are English and French. Thus
far twenty-three cases have been before the court and twenty-nine arrest
warrants have been issued against twenty-seven suspects. Eight people have been
detained in the ICC detention centre, thirteen suspects remain at large, whilst
three cases have been dropped due to the deaths the suspects. In addition to
the futuristic court building in The Hague the ICC also has six field offices
in Kinshasa and Bunia in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kampala in Uganda,
Bangui in the Central African Republic, Nairobi in Kenya, and Abidjan in the
Ivory Coast.

My judgement? In
theory the ICC is a vital step on the road to a world in which impunity is
accepted as unacceptable. However, look at the number of cases and from where
most of them come, and then look at which states have not as yet ratified the
Rome Statute, or not even signed it. The majority of defendants come from
Sub-Saharan African states. On first appearance some might suggest the ICC
functions as an instrument of latter-day imperialism. That is not the case. Quite
simply, not a few leaders of African states have accepted the jurisdiction of
the ICC simply to remove political opponents. Still,
too many of the defendants are black Africans.

Now, look at
which states have not acceded to the Statute or refused to ratify it, of which
there are some seventy-three. The list includes China, India, Russia, North
Korea…and the United States. The US claims to have concerns about how the ICC
might affect its deployed armed forces. However, American political objections
run deeper; for Washington international institutions such as the ICC have
always been for ‘lesser’ states, i.e. everyone else. China and Russia, and to a
lesser extent India, seem to regard the ICC as counter to a world view that can
at best be described as twenty-first century Machtpolitik. North Korea? No comment. Even Britain and France, two
of the main sponsors of the ICC on the United Nations Security Council, and two
of the architects of an institutional community concept of international
relations (Brexit???) keep their distance.

In a sense the
ICC is one of those strategic bell-weathers, the fate of which indicates the
health or otherwise of the global order. If the ICC prospers and is adopted and
accepted over time by all powers then it would indeed suggest a world order
embedded in functioning institutions and established on shared and universal
principles of conduct and precept. If the ICC fails, and it could, the world
will look much like it did to Thucydides in the fifth century BC, "We hope that
you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Lacedaemonians, although their colonists,
or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in
view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do thatright, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power,
while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

My thanks again to
Judge Perrin de Brichambaut and I very much hope I can return to the ICC to see
and this time hear the Court in action.

Monday, 13 June 2016

“Armed conflict is a human condition,
and I do not doubt we will continue to reinvent it from generation to
generation.”

General Sir Rupert Smith

Alphen, Netherlands. 13 June. How can Europe restore military
credibility? Three events this past week have led me to consider what makes
armed forces credible? The first was a brilliant (of course) intervention of
mine in the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf
in which I again pointed out why what the Dutch government claims is a modest increase
in the Dutch defence budget is in fact not. The second, and not unrelated
event, was a visit by the NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg to the
Netherlands during which he politely pleaded with Dutch Prime Minister Rutte to
increase their defence spending. The third, and most glitzy of all the events,
was London’s impressive Trooping the
Colour this past weekend to mark the official birthday of Her Majesty Queen
Elizabeth II, and her own ninetieth birthday. British military precision at its
best, topped off by a thirty-five aircraft flypast by the Royal Air Force. And yet,
it takes ever more effort by the British armed forces to put on a show that is
by historic standards relatively modest.

The problem in Europe is as ever primarily political. At this
point some right-on Leftist dude with political leanings towards the likes of Britain’s
Jeremy Corbyn would tell me that armed forces are in and of themselves the
problem. On the political Right Colonel (Retd.) Aubry Twistleton-Twistleton
Smythe-Ffrench would tell me that Britain (for example) needs to spend at least
10% of the public purse to keep Blighty safe from dangerous, bloody Johnny
Foreigner-types.

On one hand, the political Left tend to see their small armed
forces as the armed wing of liberal internationalism, particularly in Western
Europe. Over the past decade European leaders have come close to breaking their
respective armed forces by sending them on bottomless pit campaigns in the hope
of making the distinctly illiberal, liberal. On the other hand, the political Right
tends to see the military as solely devoted to preparing to fight a major war
in order to prevent it.

Ironically, the two political camps are both wrong and both
right. The world is such that there are of course occasions when armed force
needs to act as a kind of super police force, just as there are times when such
a force must demonstrably demonstrate its warfighting credentials through fighting
power. Can the European state strike a credible balance between the two?

Before that question can be answered a further question must
be addressed; against what must armed forces defend? There is a new way of war called
hybrid war in which disinformation, destabilisation, and destruction are fast
becoming one and the same. To mount a credible defence and preserve the
capacity for the offensive today’s armed forces need to operate together with
all security elements of a state (and allied states) across eight domains of
engagement; air, sea, land, space, cyber, information, knowledge, and
resilience.

The first step back to military credibility is to face facts.
According to its own figures the Dutch government spend 1.14% GDP on defence, significantly
below the 1.43% NATO Europe average, and far below the 2% GDP on defence NATO
calls for. In fact, if one applies the standard measure for measuring defence
expenditure the Dutch spend nearer 1% GDP on defence. In May Euroland leaders conceded
the principle of debt mutualisation. By so doing Euroland leaders also conceded
the need for the relatively few taxpayers of the relatively few Eurozone states
who actually pay for the mess that is the single currency (that is me!) to
transfer economic growth-annihilating billions of Euros to those that do not.
Therefore, the chance that a country like the Netherlands where I pay my taxes
would actually increase its defence expenditure over the interim is now highly unlikely,
whatever the spin. In the great struggle between European debt and European defence
the latter has been, is being, and will be repeatedly and consistently defeated.

The second step is to bring defence back to the heart of the
state. The only way a credible twenty-first century European defence can be
mounted is to place the armed forces back at the very heart of European state
power – civilian and military. That does
not I am proposing the militarization of the state. There are relatively small
forces, such as those of the British and the Dutch, which if properly embedded
in and backed by all state means, much of it civilian, and further-embedded in
demonstrably functioning alliances, could in turn generate the necessary ends,
ways and means to be mount a credible integrated defence and on occasions a
pre-emptive offence.

The third step is to either generate or have access to a
sufficiency of military firepower that matches the firepower of potential
adversaries. Size and strength does indeed matter in the race for a military
edge.

The fourth and most crucial step is for politicians to recognise
all of the above and to demonstrate an understanding of the utility of force and,
if needs be, in the worst of all circumstances; war. This week Dutch Prime
Minister Rutte, like so many of his European counterparts, again demonstrated that
he either lacks this crucial understanding, or that on balance to him European debt
is a more important strategic issue than European defence. Sadly, the politics
of contemporary Europe does make the choice between debt and defence mutually
exclusive.

In a follow-on to my 2015 book on Friday I finished a big,
shortly to be published, paper on NATO and the July Warsaw Summit (which is of
course brilliant) in which I pose twenty hard questions about whether the
Alliance can endure in a changing world. The questions I pose are all questions
politicians urgently need to answer at Warsaw, but will not. This is precisely
because a) Europe’s political leaders are still unwilling to face hard defence
facts; b) far from embedding their armed forces at the heart of the state, most
Western Europe’s leaders have spent the past decade pushing them to the political
margins by using defence budgets as debt alleviation funds; c) the very idea of
military firepower is to many in this generation of European political leaders
toxic; and d) many leaders simply do not understand either the political or the
strategic utility of legitimate force.

My conclusion? Most of Europe’s armed forces are today far
from being credible as armed forces, which tests not only their credibility but
their very legitimacy. Indeed, when set against threats Europeans face few if
any would be able to mount a credible defence, and that crucially undermines
their collective ability to deter.

Friday, 10 June 2016

“India is already assuming her
responsibilities in securing the Indian Ocean region…A strong India-US
partnership can anchor peace, prosperity and stability from Asia to Africa and
the Indian Ocean to the Pacific.”

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, US Congress, 8 June, 2016

Alphen, Netherlands. 10 June. While
Europeans wallow in the mud-pit of endless self-obsession the world moves on.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi made Wednesday one of the most important strategic
speeches this century to a joint session of the US Congress. The fifth Indian
prime minister to be accorded such an honour as he spoke I sensed I was
listening to the future. When I have heard British prime ministers make such
speeches of late my sense has been too often of listening to the past. It need
not be like that.

In a
speech that combined humour and realism in equal measure Modi laid out the
terms of what for me is the New West. Now, Indian readers of this blog might
with some force suggest an element of cultural imperialism on my part by even
placing the emerging US-Indian strategic partnership in those terms. After all,
the West, like modern India, emerged from the British Empire, and not always without
struggle.

However,
for all my British chutzpah there is some strength in the idea. For my part I
have long held the West to be an idea, not a place. Indeed, many of my books
and articles have been inspired by that very idea. Indeed, when I cast my
seasoned eye over the world today I see a new global bipolar order emerging,
with liberal power on one side of a struggle with illiberal power the world
over – be it states such as China and Russia, and/or groups such as ISIS.

India
is certainly a twenty-first century great power by any standards. If one
considers economic power the IMF calculates that in terms of nominal GDP in
2015 India had the ninth largest economy, with the US having the world’s largest,
and the British the fifth largest world economy. However, the IMF suggests that
if one considers purchasing power parity in 2015 India had the world’s third
largest economy, after China and the US, with the UK down at eighth. If once
considers military power India is also a Great Power. In 2015 the International Institute for Strategic
Studies placed India as fifth biggest defence spender in the world, after the
US, China, Saudi Arabia and the UK.

It is
liberal-democracy and the rule of just law that is at the heart of the New West.
However, if this West is to prevail it must be reinforced by power – economic and
military. The United States by dint of its very strategic weight is emerging as
the hub of the New West, a world-wide web of democracies that will come to
define perhaps the world’s most powerful security grouping in the twenty-first
century.

However,
for the New West to become fact those of us in the Old West will need to change
our thinking, particularly about India. Some years ago I attended a meeting in
New Delhi with senior Indian politicians. Sitting next to me was an official
from the British High Commission. My thesis was as ever direct; the Raj is
over, India is an emerging Great Power and, for all London’s declinism and its
propensity to view foreign policy as a perpetual strategic apology, Britain
remains a Great Power. Therefore, it is time for Britain and India to celebrate
the much that the two powers share, move on and do business.

As I
spoke I could feel the discomfort from my Foreign Office colleague. For the ‘FCO’
‘don‘t mention the Raj’ with India has the same sacred mantra quality as ‘don’t
mention the war’ with Germany. When I
had finished said official effectively apologised on my behalf for my remarks
by distancing the FCO from them, even though it was not his place to do so. At
that point an Indian politician said that I was right. Britain’s endless apology
for the past was in fact a form of arrogance; an attempt to frame India
eternally in terms of Britain’s past. That must stop.

Prime
Minister Modi made it perfectly clear that India will define its relationship
with the United States and the wider West on Indian terms. It will be a pluralistic
relationship built on strength and respect. He is surely right. However, for
the huge potential in the Indian-US relationship to be truly realised Western
capitals must see India for the power it is. India is still too often viewed
through the lens of post-colonialism by the West. Yes, India has a myriad of
developmental problems to overcome. However, there can be little doubt that the
world’s biggest democracy has the wherewithal to do just that.

The
US-India strategic relationship promises to be one of the most important
security relationships of the twenty-first century – built on the very mix of
power and values needed to shape and not suffer a changing world. If European
powers like Britain and their little leaders could only stop being so pathetic
and wake up and smell India’s strong coffee, they too could be part of the
exciting future Prime Minister Modi’s presence in Congress implied, and part of
a New West (or whatever you want to call it) that India will help define.

Tuesday, 7 June 2016

Alphen, Netherlands. 7 June.
Chaired by the excellent Dr Phillip Lee MP it was British democracy at its
best. Last Friday evening I took part in an excellent Brexit debate at
Wellington College in the Royal County of Berkshire. Aimed at the Brexit
‘undecideds’ I made the case for ‘in’ alongside an old and much respected
colleague Charles Grant, founder of the Centre for European Reform. For the
‘Out’ campaign there were two impressive speakers. Anna Firth, a well-known
lawyer and politician made her case for Brexit with forensic precision. Ryan
Bourne of the Institute for Economic Affairs, brought a huge weight of serious
economic expertise to the debate. Me? As you will see from my remarks below I
made the geopolitical case for ‘in’. That, after all, is what I do.

My essential point was this;
there is much about the EU I find nauseating, even potentially inimical to
democracy. However, the world is too dangerous and Europe too unstable for
Britain to flounce out. Over the next decade the world beyond Europe will force
enormous change on Europe. That change will be used by those in the EU
dangerously gripped by the idea of an individual-crushing, oligarchic federal
super-state to advance their case. Rather, I want Britain, a top five world
political, economic, and military power in the EU fighting like mad for a
super-alliance of nation-states in which power remains close to the people, and
accountable to them. Perhaps the biggest challenge Britain faces is to get a
failed political and bureaucratic elite in London to use British power and
influence to effect and overcome their own pervasive and endemic
declinism.

If you are really sad and want to
see the debate and my speech in glorious technocolor you can do so online
either by going to www.philip-lee.com/video-gallery/
or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zckz8TbzlgA

Ten Reasons why I Reject Brexit

“Thank you,
Philip. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
It is an honour to be here. You know, I have a strange feeling being
here tonight. Living in the Netherlands, watching what passes for the Brexit
debate over here, I feel like I am intruding on my own private grief.

Three issues I want briefly to
address: Who the hell am I? What do I think of both campaigns so far? Why on geopolitical
balance I reject Brexit?

The Takeaway:

But let me start with what the
Yanks would call the ‘takeaway’. On Wednesday EU Council President Donald Tusk
said that EU leaders should concentrate on practical matters and abandon
“utopian dreams of ever closer integration to combat rising Euro-scepticism”. Whether
you believe him or not reading between the lines it is clear that the next
decade will be a big strategic tipping point for the EU and Europe. I want
Britain in there fighting for the principle we fought to give Europe, and which
Abraham Lincoln so eloquently described in the Gettysburg Address: “That
government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from
the earth”.

Nor will I pull any punches:

Those of you like me who vote to
remain are going to be sorely tested after the referendum: The Greek debt and
Eurozone crises are on hold until after 23 June and Britain cannot incubate
itself from the consequences – in or out. The Italian debt crisis might well soon
break. The migration crisis is a systemic challenge that will continue as
millions the world-over are on the move. Germany for entirely legitimate
reasons will push to turn the Eurozone into a hybrid federation under its
leadership – a Real EU. Forget George
Osborne and the woeful Treasury; the EU is an economic basket case that must
become more competitive or die.

So, why am I committed to
Britain staying in the EU?

It is precisely because Brexit is
a symptom of a big strategic crisis in Europe, and it is precisely because
Europe is in crisis, that I cannot countenance Britain, Europe’s leading
military power and second biggest economy, leaving the EU at this moment. I just wish the numpties on both sides in
London would see that.

So, who the hell am I?

I am an analyst, not a
politician. I call it as I see it. I am also a Briton/Yorkshireman living in
the Netherlands with my Dutch wife. I would describe myself as a Europhile,
EU-sceptic. And, like many in my Dutch village I do not like distant power.
Equally, I believe deeply in European co-operation, but completely reject the
dangerous idea of a European super-state. Read my writings and you will find me
no friend of the Brussels elite (which I know well). That said, I reject the
caricature of Brussels as brim-full of power-mad foreigners hell-bent on
destroying Britain’s ancient freedoms. Only 90% or so are of that persuasion.

What do I think about the
campaigns on both sides?

Rubbish…on both sides! Anyone who
tells you that the case for ‘in’ or ‘out’ is black and white is either lying,
deluding themselves, or plain stupid. This is one of those moments when we must
all exercise strategic judgement. Sadly,
the Brexit campaign is not the British political class at its best (present
company of course excepted). The only facts
you need to know are the following. In 2015 the International Monetary Fund
cited Britain as the world’s 5th biggest economy. In 2015 the
International Institute for Strategic Studies had Britain as the world’s 4th
biggest defence spender. Britain is not a small island as some would have it;
Britain is a top five world power but needs to start acting like one. Indeed, for
me the real issue implicit in Brexit is why the Westminster political class and
the Whitehall Establishment have become so bad at wielding British power and
influence, in Europe or elsewhere. To find out why in 2015 I wrote a book
entitled Little Britain. It is
brilliant, and very-reasonably priced!

Let me also state for the record that I am in some sympathy with the Brexiteers,
and whilst the Cameron plan is not as weak as some would have it, there will be
no reform of the EU per se under the Cameron plan. With a few window dressing
minor adjustments most of the so-called ‘new’ arrangements actually exist under
current treaty provisions. The agreement confirms that Britain will not at any
point be part of EU structures of which it is already NOT a part, most notably
the Euro, Schengen, and ever closer political union. Der! So, why do I reject
Brexit?

Ten reasons why I
reject Brexit?

1.
The integrity of the United Kingdom: The
UK is fragile and I do not want to give the secessionists in Scotland any
succour.

2. The
balance of power in Europe is shifting in Britain’s favour: Britain is already the EU’s

strongest military power,
some commentators (CEBR) suggest that by 2030 the EU’s 2nd biggest
economy could be the biggest.

Pressure for EU
reform will grow: Britain is
not alone. Come to my Dutch village, and you will see growing demands for
more democracy, more accountability and an EU more alliance than union organised
around the nation-state rather than committed to destroying it. Dutch Prime
Minister Marc Rutte has already said the idea of a full-on super-state is
dead.

Immigration: Free movement is as much a consequence
of victory in the Cold War as the EU. EU or not we would have something like free movement in Europe.
Indeed, it is hard to imagine contemporary Europe without it. The failure
is a failure of management.

If it’s broke
fix it! The EU is a fact of
life - stay or go. Even Jean-Claude Juncker has admitted the EU needs a
new political settlement for Eurozone and the non-Eurozone to cohabit. I
want Britain in there fighting like mad to influence what is a vital
British interest. In any case Britain has a constitutional lock under the
2011 European Union Act, which means any more transfers of sovereignty
will require (heaven forbid!) yet another (bloody) referendum.

Good Geopolitics:
No Project Fear but this is a
dangerous strategic moment. All of us in the EU to be focused on events in
Russia and the Middle East and yet we are not. The Scottish referendum
effectively paralysed the British government for two years. Whitehall is
again paralysed in the run-up to this referendum. Brexit negotiations will
take at least two years, more likely five or more years. Our
strategically-illiterate elite need little excuse to again take their
collective eye off the big strategic ball.

Grand Strategy: InJanuary 2016 I stood in the Lithuanian
snow not far from the border with Russia. In November 2015 and March 2016
terrorist attacks took place in Paris and Brussels. Europe is again locked
in two big, bad struggles with big, bad forces. Brexit now would send all
the wrong signals to all the wrong people. We simply cannot isolate
ourselves. We are too powerful to hide. We must stand with our friends and
allies both in NATO and the EU.

The Weight of History:The control and direction of Europe is
simply too critical a national British interest. Boris Johnson was right…and
wrong. Phillip II of Spain, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Kaiser Bill and, yes,
Adolf Hitler, were all seen off
because first England and then Britain stood firm, built coalitions and
counter-vailing liberal power. It was not the US that gave much of
Europe parliamentary democracy; it was Britain.

The EU is still
about Power. Let me be clear;
the EU is none of the above and I do not equate Brussels with Hitler’s
Berlin. Indeed, what became the EU was created precisely to prevent a
Hitler ever again rising to power. However, Project Europe is but still
about power; who controls it, and for the benefit of whom. Like it or
loathe it the EU prevents extreme behaviour by extreme states. It must now
be prevented from slipping into a form of bureaucratic tyranny. Britain
must engage, not disengage!

Political Irony: The political irony of Brexit is that
after all the froth and foment there is every chance Britain will end up
in exactly the same place whether it stays of goes. Cameron’s ‘special
status’ means Britain will become an associate member of the Real EU – the
Eurozone. If Britain goes then Britain will end up as an associate member
of the Eurozone. The difference being that if Britain stays in the EU Britain
is at least at the table. Do not think for the moment those in Parliament
who desire to remain will take a Brexit vote as the last word. Brexit commits no politician to any
particular model and given the Parliamentary majority for Remain
withdrawal negotiations will almost certainly lead to a compromise
relationship with the EU.

So, my own position is clear. On balance Britain should remain within
the EU, lead the reformers, lead the non-Eurozone group, and fight like mad for
an EU that is for the people, of the people, and by the people.

About Me

Julian Lindley-French is Senior Fellow of the Institute of Statecraft, Director of Europa Analytica & Distinguished Visiting Research Fellow, National Defense University, Washington DC. An internationally-recognised strategic analyst, advisor and author he was formerly Eisenhower Professor of Defence Strategy at the Netherlands Defence Academy,and Special Professor of Strategic Studies at the University of Leiden. He is a Fellow of Respublica in London, and a member of the Strategic Advisory Group of the Atlantic Council of the United States in Washington.
Latest books: The Oxford Handbook on War 2014 (Paperback) (2014; 709 pages). (Oxford: Oxford University Press) & "Little Britain? Twenty-First Strategy for a Middling European Power". (www.amazon.com)
The Friendly-Clinch Health Warning: The views contained herein are entirely my own and do not necessarily reflect those of any institution.